Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
co-reading-mcp

co-reading-mcp

by kikuovo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Append reading notes

append_notes

Add timestamped notes including clues, reasoning, or thoughts while reading a book to track progress and resume sessions without re-reading.

Instructions

Append a timestamped note entry (clues, reasoning, thoughts) for a book.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bookId": "<bookId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "append_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookIdYes
contentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'timestamped' but does not explain side effects, prerequisites (e.g., book existence), or whether appending appends to a list or overwrites. Significant gaps for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though a bit more structure (e.g., separating purpose and details) could improve clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, error cases, or what happens after appending. For a simple tool, this is minimally viable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'timestamped' as context but does not clarify what 'bookId' represents (e.g., ISBN) or the expected format of 'content'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'append', the resource 'note entry', and qualifies it with 'timestamped' and 'for a book'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'add_annotation' and 'read_notes' by specifying the action and content type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_annotation' or 'read_notes'. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools